UN Calls For Eco-Fascist World Government At Durban Summit

Exactly! Cooling is another strawman built by the anti-AGW folks. The goal many scientists wanted was a limit of 1.5C warming, but IIRC, a 2C compromise was reached because 1.5C would have had, according to some, too drastic an effect on some economies.

 

If you can stop it, you can reverse it.

 

At what cost?

 

Nobody is trying to stop it. The focus is on mitigation.

 

Read the Op

 

Where is there proof less CO2 will change anything. Besides warming has stopped for the past 10 years

 

The focus is money

 

Let me see if I can explain "significance" to you.
If today's global temperature is below the average, can we state that the earth is cooling?
If this past week's global temperature was below the average, can we state that the earth is cooling?
If this past month's global temperature was below the average, can we state that the earth is cooling?
If this past year's global temperature was below the average, can we state that the earth is cooling?
If this global temperature for the last 2 was below the average, can we state that the earth is cooling?
If this global temperature for the last 5 was below the average, can we state that the earth is cooling?
If this global temperature for the last 10 was below the average, can we state that the earth is cooling?
If this global temperature for the last 20 was below the average, can we state that the earth is cooling?
If this global temperature for the last 25 was below the average, can we state that the earth is cooling?
If this global temperature for the last 50 was below the average, can we state that the earth is cooling?

At what interval can we state that the earth is cooling? And why?

 

What does any of this have to do with the Durban foolishness?

 

Ask ptif! He is the one that mentioned Spencer & Braswell and keeps harping on "manipulated data" and then deflecting when he gets cornered or can not answer simple questions.

 

Just can't bring yourself to criticize the Durban farce, can you?

 

I answered the questions it is you that refuse to admit that the models have been proven wrong.

This means the GW claims are wrong and Durban is about money not warming

 

Apparently... Warmers cannot defend Durban.

 

Being a 'warmer' doesn't mean you automatically agree with every single policy put forward in the name of AGW.

 

Do you defend the "remedies" put forth by Kyoto and Durban?

 

No, I don't.

 

You do realize that the outlandish "remedies" are intertwined with the scientific discussion, don't you?

 

Of course they are connected. Is this leading anywhere? Do you have a point to make?

 

What remedies? The ones claimed by Monckton?
Please try to be more specific when asking questions. Links would be nice.

 

Lepper posted:
“Of course they are connected. Is this leading anywhere? Do you have a point to make?”

Taxcutter says:
Of course I have a point to make. As long as the outlandish “remedies” remain even remote possibilities, they drown out any scientific discussion. Right now, the “remedies” force the science top a level of confidence that even Newton or Einstein could not meet.

With “remedies” like Durban on the table any scientific discussion looks like sterile scholasticism.

Can you bring yourself to publicly condemn Kyoto and Durban?

 

You need to specify. Are you talking about any and all 'remedies'? Or just Kyoto/Durban? Either way, how exactly do they drown out scientific discussion? I've never seen any evidence of this.

 

Lepper posted:
“You need to specify. Are you talking about any and all 'remedies'? Or just Kyoto/Durban?”

Taxcutter says:
Since you want to play dumb, let’s start with Kyoto.
Let’s just talk the US for now.
The original Kyoto Protocol (1997) called for the US to reduce its GHG emissions by 36% from 1990 levels by 2012.

According to http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads09/GHG2007-ES-508.pdf
The 1990 US GHG emission level was 6.099 Tgm CO2(e)
Therefore by 2012 the US was required to reduce its GHJG emissions to 64% of that or 3.903 Tgm CO2(e)
Problem was that by 1997 (from the same link) US GHG emissions had increased to 6.727 Tgm CO2(e), so to meet the demands of the Kyoto Protocol the US had to reduce its overall GHG emission by (6.727-3.903=) 2.824 Tgm CO2(e). That meant a reduction of 42% from 1997 levels and the US had to do it within fifteen years.

A reduction in US GHG emissions to required levels would have required a reduction equivalent to the entire emission from the transportation, industrial, and residential sectors of the economy (same link). In short, to comply with Kyoto, nobody in the US could make anything, nobody could travel around at all, and our homes could not be heated or cooled. And it all had to happen in a relatively short period of time. No consideration was made for development of (still nonexistent) substitutes.

Now an alternative path to compliance would have been to replace all of the US electrical power generation with nuclear power plus replace a third of the energy used in transportation, industry, and residential heating cooling with some unspecified substitute (or just do without). Just replacing the fossil fuel power plants would have required about 900 new nuclear plants be permitted, built and in operation within a fifteen year period. In the US, you couldn’t even get the permit issued within fifteen years. The cost of building 900 nukes alone would have cost about half of the Social Security outlay over that fifteen year period.

In short, the economy of the US would be crippled for at least a decade and a half.

We’ll not go into the amount of funds that were demanded to be funneled through the corrupt UN to tinhorn dictators because the numbers are all over the place. Needless to say, in light of the monumental outlay required to comply with GHG emissions reductions in the US even $1.98 would have been excessive.

While US really got hammered, China (now the No.1 emitter of GHG) got off 100% scot-free.

That was the official remedy for AGW. Do you want to explain to the board why such a radical plan was even remotely acceptable?

Then we get the Durban carnival. The link in the OP covers that. It demands a 2 degree Celcius atmospheric temperature drop. Such a drop would put the world back in a condition similar to the Little ice Age. Do you care to defend any part of Durban?

Until you can condemn Kyoto and Durban in their entirety, what makes you think you deserve credibility?

 

If the whole issue did not demand enormous sacrifice on the part of the US climate change would be nothing but a scientific curiosity – like the pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope. But the “remedies” put forth are entirely unacceptable and nobody has put forth science that would justify one percent of the economic calamity caused by the “remedies.”

 

Source for these numbers?

 

Read the link, Mannie.